React Development Workflow MCP Server

auto_fix_sonarqube_issues

Automatically fix common SonarQube issues by supplying issue details and file type, applying corrections directly to your code.

Instructions

Automatically fix common SonarQube issues

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "issues": "<issues>"
    },
    "name": "auto_fix_sonarqube_issues"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`issues`	Yes	List of issues to fix
`fileType`	No	File type being fixed

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only states the tool 'fixes' issues, but does not clarify whether it modifies files in place, whether changes are reversible, any permissions needed, or what happens with unsupported issues.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the core action, but is so brief that it sacrifices valuable details that could be included without compromising conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is moderately complex (accepts an array of issue objects and an optional file type, likely modifies files), but no output schema exists and the description does not explain return values, side effects, failure modes, or requirements. This is insufficient for an agent to safely invoke the tool without more context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with basic descriptions ('List of issues to fix', 'File type being fixed'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema and does not explain the expected structure of the 'issues' array or the effect of different fileType values.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Automatically fix') and a resource ('common SonarQube issues'), clearly indicating the tool's goal. It is distinct from sibling tools like check_sonarqube_issues, though it doesn't specify what 'fix' entails or which exact issues are addressed.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical workflows (e.g., after running check_sonarqube_issues), or scenarios where this tool would be inappropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server